Skip to main content
Glama
leethais91

thais-skills

by leethais91
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

List Redmine Issues

redmine_list_issues
Read-onlyIdempotent

List and filter Redmine issues by project, status, assignee, date, and more. Retrieve compact or full details with custom column selection, sorting, and pagination.

Instructions

List and filter issues from Redmine.

Args:

  • project_id, tracker_id, status_id, assigned_to_id, author_id, priority_id: Filters

  • subject: Search in subject (partial match)

  • parent_id: Filter by parent issue ID ("~" for root issues)

  • updated_on, created_on: Date filters (e.g., ">=2024-01-01")

  • sort: Sort (e.g., "updated_on:desc")

  • view: "compact" (default, saves tokens: ID/Subject/Status/Priority/Assignee) or "full" (adds Tracker/Done)

  • fields: Override columns, e.g. ["id","subject","status","due_date"]. Available: id, tracker, subject, status, priority, assigned_to, done_ratio, project, updated_on, due_date, author

  • limit / offset: Pagination

User preferences: none saved yet. The first time you help this user, ask once which Redmine projects they actually work on (suggest candidates via redmine_get_current_user with include_memberships=true and recent issues assigned to them), then save with redmine_save_preferences. Do not ask on later sessions — the saved answer replaces this hint (review anytime via redmine_get_my_context).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sortNoSort field, e.g. 'updated_on:desc'
viewNoOutput mode: compact (fewer columns) or fullcompact
limitNoMax results to return
fieldsNoCustom columns to show, e.g. ['id','subject','status','due_date']
offsetNoPagination offset
subjectNoSearch in subject (partial match)
author_idNoAuthor user ID or 'me'
parent_idNoFilter by parent issue ID (e.g. '123' or '~' for root issues)
status_idNoStatus filter: 'open', 'closed', '*', or numeric ID
created_onNoCreated date filter, e.g. '>=2024-01-01'
project_idNoProject ID or identifier
tracker_idNoTracker ID
updated_onNoUpdated date filter, e.g. '>=2024-01-01'
priority_idNoPriority ID
assigned_to_idNoAssignee user ID or 'me'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: default view mode with token-saving rationale, full vs compact column sets, available override fields, pagination, sort/date filter syntax, and the stateful first-time user-preference flow. It openly describes side effects on agent behavior, like asking once and saving preferences.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is longer than average but well-organized into a purpose line, a grouped bullet list of arguments, and a user-preference note. Each section has a clear role; the preference note is wordy but relevant to agent behavior. No filler or repetition is present.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 15 optional parameters, no output schema, and a rich annotation set, the description goes beyond the minimum: it covers filtering, sorting, view modes, pagination, and even return columns for each view. It also accounts for the user's saved-preference state, which is important for correct first-time behavior. Nothing essential for invoking this tool successfully is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains '~' for root parent issues, gives concrete sort/date filter examples, details what 'compact' vs 'full' views return, enumerates valid columns for 'fields', and groups filters logically. Some parameter details like 'me' or 'open' values are already in the schema, so the added value is strong but not exhaustive.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening sentence, 'List and filter issues from Redmine,' uses a specific verb and resource, making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is naturally differentiated from the sibling redmine_get_issue, which retrieves a single issue, and from other list-type tools like redmine_list_projects.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool ('List and filter issues') but never explicitly contrasts it with alternatives or states when not to use it. The user-preference note gives workflow guidance for first-time interactions, but it does not address tool-selection trade-offs among the many sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools